The race-fix case of Briatore and Symonds versus the FIA

[SZ]

The difference is that doping just endangers the offender and disadvantages the honest participants. The deliberate crashing of a racing car can have tragical consequences not only for the participating drivers but also for the marshals and spectators. It is not so long ago that young Surtees was killed by a flying wheel and that a marshal was killed by a wheel in Australia. Because of the safety concerns one cannot compare this with doping. The conspirators certainly had potential manslaughter on their conscience if the crash had caused further accidents.

(Again,) Flav wasn't tried for the potential dangers of deliberately crashing a race car (not least that he'd not be the most culpable in this affair - but the least). He was tried for knowing of an affair contrary to competition rules, which wasn't proven. It was decided that, beyond reasonable doubt, that he likely knew of the affair, and was handed a life ban. The idiot pulling the trigger was given immunity and the guy admitting to being the mastermind was banned for five years.

Piquet drove into a wall. Drivers have deliberately driven into each other and have been handed... something between nothing and a points exclusion. Briatore has a valid basis for appeal and no avenue within the FIA to seek it fairly. Doubtful he'll get what he wants in a French court, but doubtful it's over either.

You don't like Flav, we know, leave the dead horse alone and get over it. He's the least culpable in this affair yet the most heavily penalised.

Put your logic hat on and move on. (Or complain to a moderator... again.)

[WhiteBlue]

Flav ... was tried for knowing of an affair contrary to competition rules, which wasn't proven. It was decided that, beyond reasonable doubt, that he likely knew of the affair, and was handed a life ban.

It is fact that Renault assigned responsibility for the conspiracy to their managers after an internal investigation, this is why they were sacked. The WMSC hearing had testimony from Piquet, Symmonds and the unnamed witness "X" that Briatore was a conspirator in the crash plan. Despite requests to testify he did not attend the meeting. Until Renault sacked him Briatore was personally representing the FIA licensee Renault as the director and team principal. In that capacity the total responsibility for all actions of all team members until the day of his resignation fell on him. They obviously punished the right guy this time after he dodged the sword several times before.

Piquet drove into a wall. Drivers have deliberately driven into each other and have been handed... something between nothing and a points exclusion. Briatore has a valid basis for appeal and no avenue within the FIA to seek it fairly. Doubtful he'll get what he wants in a French court, but doubtful it's over either.

I don't think that we have seen a pre meditated team effort including a strategic planning where to crash and involving at least four team personnel before. This was pretty much unprecedented. A least it could never before been proven. The appeal could have been made to the ICA.

You don't like Flav, we know, ....... He's the least culpable in this affair yet the most heavily penalised.

Sorry to say that, but I cannot agree with that view. Compare further up why he was the most culpable (responsibility).

[timbo]

The WMSC hearing had testimony from Piquet, Symmonds and the unnamed witness "X" that Briatore was a conspirator in the crash plan.

Not from Symmonds.
Only Piquet (interested party) and witness "X", a funny chap who does seem to recall various pieces of needed info only on request.

[xpensive]

The WMSC hearing had testimony from Piquet, Symmonds and the unnamed witness "X" that Briatore was a conspirator in the crash plan.

Not from Symmonds.
Only Piquet (interested party) and witness "X", a funny chap who does seem to recall various pieces of needed info only on request.

What I believe is unheard of is giving someone a lifetime "berufsverbot", based on an anonymous witness?
Other than perhaps in the DDR or Hollywood in the fifties.

In all honesty, I think you have to be rather one-eyed not to see the MrM's personal motives behind such a verdict.

[WhiteBlue]

The WMSC hearing had testimony from Piquet, Symmonds and the unnamed witness "X" that Briatore was a conspirator in the crash plan.

Not from Symmonds.
Only Piquet (interested party) and witness "X", a funny chap who does seem to recall various pieces of needed info only on request.

Symmonds confirmed that the thing had been discussed and investigated the day before which heavily incriminates himself and Briatore if you take Piquet's submission for truth. It obviously hinges on Piquet's testimony. I believe Piquet was telling the truth in order to earn his amnesty, anything else wouldn't have made sense in his situation. A court will see this as well.

[WhiteBlue]

What I believe is unheard of is giving someone a lifetime "berufsverbot", based on an anonymous witness?
Other than perhaps in the DDR or Hollywood in the fifties.

That is a funny way of leaving out the main points. The punishment reflects the graveness of the transgression, the personal responsibility of Briatore for the team actions and his dual role of managing the driver and ordering his actions from the pit wall and the boss office. There were enough concerns that Briatore's management methods alone are malpractise to make him drop that.

I have said before that life ban could be a problem under the EU human rights charter. So a verdict may be reduced to something like 20 years. Effectively that will have the same effect.

In all honesty, I think you have to be rather one-eyed not to see the MrM's personal motives behind such a verdict.

Of course there may be all kinds of personal motives. The top dogs in F1 all share a long history. That is the nature of the sport and the reason why the counsil is made up of many different participants. But in the end you have to live with your actions. Who knows what Briatore did in his life to upset other people? It is speculation.

[timbo]

The WMSC hearing had testimony from Piquet, Symmonds and the unnamed witness "X" that Briatore was a conspirator in the crash plan.

Not from Symmonds.
Only Piquet (interested party) and witness "X", a funny chap who does seem to recall various pieces of needed info only on request.

Symmonds confirmed that the thing had been discussed and investigated the day before which heavily incriminates himself and Briatore if you take Piquet's submission for truth. It obviously hinges on Piquet's testimony. I believe Piquet was telling the truth in order to earn his amnesty, anything else wouldn't have made sense in his situation. A court will see this as well.

Earning the amnesty suggests being cooperative and therefore "telling the truth" matter solely depends on the intentions of the investigator.

[Fil]

At worst Flav & Symmonds gave Piquet Jr the gun, or were aware he had a gun.

It was Piquet Jr who pulled the trigger.

[Rob W]

The European Union courts of course can always rule where they see anti-competitive behaviour happening etc, but I'm not sure a dispute over sporting cheating...

There is also the human rights issue that is usually watched by the EU. Life ban on professional activities could be...

And that, yes. I'm not too familiar with human rights issues in the EU but that sounds pretty likely also.

[xpensive]

I think MrM turning the FIA into a tool-box for his personal agenda is actually the heart of the matter here.
Favourite instrument being "bringing the sport into disrepute", which is on judicial level with "un-American activities",
or accusations of being "counter-revolutionary".

Handing out sentences seemed to be at his own leisure, either a draconian penalty for a personal enemy, or a slap on the wrist for those on more favorable terms with the President.

Please note that I began with "I think...", when the above is only my opinion. I already know what you think WB.

[SZ]

It is fact that Renault assigned responsibility for the conspiracy to their managers after an internal investigation, this is why they were sacked. The WMSC hearing had testimony from Piquet, Symmonds and the unnamed witness "X" that Briatore was a conspirator in the crash plan. Despite requests to testify he did not attend the meeting. Until Renault sacked him Briatore was personally representing the FIA licensee Renault as the director and team principal. In that capacity the total responsibility for all actions of all team members until the day of his resignation fell on him. They obviously punished the right guy this time after he dodged the sword several times before.

You're quite conveniently confusing Renault's internal responsibilities with the FIA's. That Renault sacked him bears little - nothing actually - to what he was excluded from the sport on. Nor does the sacking constitute evidence.

I don't think that we have seen a pre meditated team effort including a strategic planning where to crash and involving at least four team personnel before. This was pretty much unprecedented. A least it could never before been proven. The appeal could have been made to the ICA.

Try 'I don't think one has ever come to light before' and you're closer to the mark. Let alone that this case was far from 'proven'.

Sorry to say that, but I cannot agree with that view. Compare further up why he was the most culpable (responsibility).

I'm yet to see a case in any sporting body where the culpable individual bringing the sport into serious disrepute is given immunity and someone who's exact involvement isn't clarified gets a life ban. I can't see whichever driver Piquet lines up against on track giving him much sympathy.

Under your logic, Todt should have been excluded from the sport long ago for his German protégé's many transgressions? I'm aware he didn't put the car into walls, only other people.

You've posted a large volume of... whatever on your speculations of why Briatore ended up where he is presently and how deserved it is. (Aside from most of it qualifying as character assassination) why not stick to what he was actually tried and sentenced for? It's at least what the courts will be doing (however poorly).

[tarzoon]

Under your logic, Todt should have been excluded from the sport long ago for his German protégé's many transgressions? I'm aware he didn't put the car into walls, only other people.

nop! These were genuine mistakes

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5dk5iieRA8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbmZO8Oz7Y[/youtube]

don't get me wrong, I don't even want to speculate that Todt had anything to do with them. Just that as Irvine said before, team orders have been around for a very long time, and I seriously doubt that this is the first time a pilot crashes due to team orders.

[WhiteBlue]

As you said, there isn't even a hint that this involved team orders.

[WhiteBlue]

Under your logic, Todt should have been excluded from the sport long ago for his German protégé's many transgressions? I'm aware he didn't put the car into walls, only other people.

You are arguing logic? Ok, lets bring some logic into this:

Briatore and Todt are both team principals, so far so good.

Both drivers, Piquet and Schumacher did produce dangerous crashes, superficially seen it is the same.

Piquet plans it hours or at least a day before and the team's directors know the plan. Schumacher drives into Villeneuve on the spur of the moment due to despair or whatever. Nobody from the team ever knew about it to our knowledge nor was anything ever spoken on the radio. This is significantly different.

Briatore and definitely Symmonds knew and knowingly did not do anything against the plan to crash the car. Todt knew nothing about the Jerez foul before and could not have taken any action to prevent it.

So can any person applying logic to the case claim that Todt failed in his responsibility, no way!! The other way round it becomes a clear case of responsibility for a conspiracy to crash a car. The plan was known on director level at least. It isn't even denied. Briatore had personal knowledge according to two witnesses. Even if he had no knowledge (which is almost unbelievable) his ability to lead the team with integrity failed when his fellow director thought he would do the company a favor by conspiring to crash a car. Symmonds must have assumed that this was ok in Briatore's book or he had never done it. Fife minutes after the race Piquet would have gone to Briatore to claim his price for crashing. So how could Symmonds hope to get away with a criminal plan unless he was sure that Briatore would approve it?

Whichever way you turn this, there is only one conclusion. Briatore failed his responsibility do the right thing or his sporting and business ethics at Renault were so perverted that his director did it to please him. Both ways Briature deserves to be fired and punished.

[SZ]

You really think Todt didn't know about any of Schumacher's many transgressions with potentially very dangerous implications?

(Falls off chair laughing)...